Lord Davies of Oldham: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Karen Buck) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	On 10 June 2005 I launched stage 2 of a two-stage consultation process about setting the night restrictions regime at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted to run to October 2012. The consultation paper explained that we intended to continue the present night restrictions regime for a further year from 30 October 2005 until 29 October 2006.
	We stated that, during that year the current regime should continue unchanged. The consultation document then invited comment on whether the specific movements limits and noise quotas to apply for summer 2006 should be the same as those for summer 2005. I also announced that the movements limits and noise quotas for winter 2005–06 should remain the same as those for winter 2004–05.
	After careful consideration of the responses on this subject to the stage 2 consultation on night flying restrictions which we launched in June, we have concluded that the movements limits and noise quotas for the summer season 2006 should be the same as for summer 2005.
	The reasons for adopting this approach remain as set out in the consultation paper and were not disputed by those responding to the consultation.
	We are continuing to consider carefully the full responses on the other issues outlined in the recent consultation exercise and will make an announcement in due course on the night restrictions regime to apply from 29 October 2006.
	The consultation also invited comment on a range of issues including the length of the night quota period (currently 11.30 pm until 6 am), the specific movements limits and noise quotas, proposals for environmental objectives and specific noise abatement objectives and possible noise insulation schemes or criteria in respect of night disturbance.
	Although there was relatively little comment on the specific point about the summer 2006 movements limits and noise quotas, there was been a greater response about other issues raised in the consultation. We are continuing to analyse those responses and carry out the associated assessments including a full regulatory impact assessment.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My honourable friend the Minister for Energy (Malcolm Wicks) has made the following Written Statement.
	I announced in my Written Statement of 21 July that I was setting up an independent external review of the handling of the department's coal health compensation schemes. This followed a series of press articles raising concerns about various aspects of the schemes.
	The terms of reference for the review were: to review the integrity of the administration of the scheme for dealing with coal health claims and to identify any specific measures needed to improve the administration of the scheme; to consider whether there are adequate safeguards in place to prevent, detect and pursue fraud while ensuring the fair and timely settlement of claims; and to make recommendations accordingly to Ministers and/or the accounting officer.
	The review was undertaken by a team led by Stephen Boys Smith, a former senior official at the Home Office.
	I am publishing today the report of the review. I have placed the report in the Libraries of both Houses and it is available on the department's website (www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth).
	I am grateful to Stephen Boys Smith and the review team for producing a focused report on what are complicated issues.
	The coal schemes were initially set up to discharge very substantial liabilities, inherited by my department from British Coal, for industrial injuries suffered by miners. In total we estimate they will result in payment to miners and their estates of up to £5 billion in compensation. We are about half way through the schemes and more than £2.8 billion has been paid out in compensation so far. As the report notes, and as Members in coal mining constituencies will be aware, significant sums have been paid out in the coal areas equivalent to around 3.5 per cent of local annual income. Current expenditure is nearly £2 million a day.
	In short, I think that the Government are fully facing up to their obligations to discharge these liabilities. Given the scale of the task, it is important that there is confidence that the schemes are being well run. I am therefore pleased to take from the report the assurance that: the administration of the schemes is basically sound although there are lessons to be learnt about how the schemes were put into operation; that, aside from continuing efficiency improvements, no major changes are needed to improve the running of the schemes; and that the fraud procedures in place are appropriate.
	The report also rejects the argument that the UDM was granted more favourable terms over other parties and confirms that arrangements with the UDM effectively provided identical compensation to that under the agreements with the claimants group.
	The report also makes a number of specific recommendations. The department fully accepts those recommendations which are directed at it and will follow them through in the months ahead. I will report to the House as appropriate on this.
	I wish to comment at this point, however, on the report's specific conclusions and recommendations in three areas: namely, the initial design of the scheme; the issue of the costs of administering the scheme, including legal costs; and the issue of transparency.
	On the basic design of the schemes, the report concludes that the arrangements put in place in the late 1990s were not the best way to administer compensation for so many people; and it goes on to recommend that, were a similar case to arise in future, the Government "should very carefully examine alternative ways of proceeding".
	I agree with this recommendation.
	When the basic groundwork for the current schemes was put in place in the late 1990s, no one knew that we would have anything like as many as 700,000 claims under the schemes; and, in particular, that we would have so many relatively low value claims. The existing schemes are now well established and we have introduced radical changes to the lung disease scheme in the past 12 months to speed up the processing of significant numbers of claims.
	Any further substantive changes to the existing schemes would run the risk of delaying the payment of claims which would be to no one's benefit. Moreover, given that we are in the last few years of the current schemes, now is not the time for further redesign. But were we to face such circumstances again, we would undoubtedly want to think long and hard about whether there are better alternatives.
	The second key issue which the report raises is the question of costs and solicitors' costs in particular. In commenting on this, I should first make clear the considerable contribution to the running of the scheme that has been made by the various firms of solicitors involved. The schemes are complex; and it is entirely right and proper that miners and their families should have professional legal support through this process, funded by the Government under the legal obligations we inherited from British Coal.
	But the report nonetheless points out that the legal cost structures were largely negotiated, along with the agreements themselves, at a time when the anticipated volumes of cases under the schemes were considerably lower than has proved to be the case. It would be wrong not to recognise that higher than anticipated volumes of cases undoubtedly bring opportunities for batch processing and reduced costs per case. The report also notes that not every claim will always require the assistance of qualified legal professionals and that the cost to public funds "does not now necessarily reflect the more routine nature of the work". The report recommends, therefore, that we consider whether there is more to be done in this area, with the aim of ensuring that legal costs more accurately reflect the nature of the work actually undertaken.
	This is an issue the department is already actively pursuing. In particular, we believe that the new "fast-track" approach we have implemented this year for the lung disease scheme should require significantly less input by solicitors and should therefore incur considerably reduced costs.
	We have argued that case with the solicitors' representatives and, indeed, before the High Court. We have now taken the issue to the Court of Appeal. I do not think it appropriate to comment in detail at this stage. But significant sums in legal costs—perhaps up to £200 million of taxpayers' money—are at stake.
	There are also other areas where we have yet to reach agreement with the claimants' solicitors on costs and we will be pursuing these equally vigorously to ensure they reflect work done and a reasonable level of return.
	More generally, I regret that legal costs have become the source of such contention. It is right that solicitors are properly rewarded for the work they have done. But claimants' representatives will recognise that it does no good whatever to the reputation of themselves or their profession if they are perceived in the press and elsewhere, rightly or wrongly, as being primarily motivated by fee earning opportunities.
	In this context, the report also discusses the concern that in some cases solicitors have taken money from claimants' compensation to cover costs even though legal costs are met by the Government, and that, again in some cases, union fees have been deducted from compensation. Both issues are discussed in the report in some detail.
	Clearly, it would be wholly unacceptable for deductions to be made from any compensation payment without the claimant's agreement, though the report notes that, as far as they were aware, there were no examples of that happening. But the report equally suggests that in some cases, claimants appear to have been invited to agree to make such contributions without it being crystal clear to them that such donations were a matter for their choice and that other solicitors would not seek to make them. That would strike me, to say the least, as questionable.
	These are essentially matters about conduct within the legal profession and the department has no direct role. We have, however, raised the issues with the Law Society in the past and will continue to make clear to them the importance of taking these issues forward rigorously and proactively. There is again legal action in prospect, though not involving the department. The report does, however, make a specific recommendation that, subject to the outcome of any legal action in this area, the legal profession should take forward the issue of claimants who were not made fully aware that they were free to use solicitors who did not make any deductions. The report calls on the legal profession to take this forward. I urge it to do so and I will follow up this issue with the Law Society.
	Thirdly, we have also taken steps immediately to address the recommendation about greater availablity of information about the schemes. We have already put on the website (http://www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth/) the claims handling agreements, including the UDM agreements, and the latest reports to the courts on progress of the schemes, which cover a lot of detail. We will consider what further information might be added and would welcome input from interested parties about what additional information they would find helpful.
	Although it is not dealt with within the report, I can also report separately to the House that the Serious Fraud Office has now confirmed to my department that, while its investigations are continuing, its investigation is not now focusing on any suspected fraud against the department.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions (Alun Michael) has made the following Written Statement.
	The Chancellor announced on 28 November that the Government had decided no longer to require quoted companies to prepare an operating and financial review, in addition to the requirements of the EU Accounts Modernisation Directive.
	I am today laying regulations which repeal the requirement on quoted companies to prepare an operating and financial review for financial years starting on or after 1 April 2005. They will need to include a business review as part of the directors' Report, in compliance with the EU Accounts Modernisation Directive requirements. This is in line with the Government's general policy not to impose regulatory requirements on UK businesses over and above relevant EU directive requirements. I am today publishing guidance on the regulations.
	We are committed to improving strategic, forward-looking narrative reporting by companies, and to enhanced dialogue with shareholders based on such reporting. We believe it is important for companies to report on non-financial issues relevant to the development and performance of the business, including, for example, environmental matters and human capital management, and they will need to do so under the business review requirements. The business review will need to cover principal risks and uncertainties as well as giving a balanced and comprehensive analysis of the business.
	The contents of the business review cover much of the ground covered in the operating and financial review, but in less prescriptive form. The depth of analysis required is proportionate to the size and complexity of the business. A small company (namely, one which satisfies two of the following: turnover of not more than £5.6 million; balance sheet total of not more than £2.8 million; not more than 50 employees) need provide no such review. Also, the business review does not have the additional audit requirement specified for the OFR.
	Companies that have been preparing to produce an OFR will be able to use that work to produce their business review. In addition, many companies have been producing a voluntary OFR for some years, and may wish to continue doing so using work that they have done toward the mandatory OFR. Or they may use that work to improve the quality and depth of their business review.
	The Government also believe that disclosures—both mandatory and voluntary—are only part of the picture. On their own, disclosures are insufficient to generate responses by businesses to the legitimate concerns of civil society. Dialogue with and pressure from stakeholders, including the public, NGOs, shareholders and government, is vital for achieving this outcome.
	In order to have the maximum impact, it is important that the requirements for narrative reporting are properly calibrated, and neither impose an excessive compliance burden, nor push companies into a "tick box" or "boilerplate" approach to disclosure.
	As regards enforcement of the business review requirements, the Financial Reporting and Review Panel has the legal authority to review a company's directors' report, for financial years beginning on or after 1 April 2006 and, if necessary, go to the court to compel a company to revise its report.
	The Company Law Reform Bill contains provisions relating to the operating and financial review. We intend to bring forward amendments to remove the need for a quoted company to produce an operating and financial review. In future such a company will have to produce a business review. I am today inviting views from interested parties by 15 February before we bring forward appropriate amendments to the Bill.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Charles Clarke) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 5 August, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced a 12 point plan of measures designed to tackle terrorism. This Statement sets out the very significant progress which has been made since that time. We will report again to Parliament on further progress before the summer recess.
	To introduce new grounds for deportation and exclusion (including the drawing up of lists of extremist bookshops etc, engagement of which would trigger deportation; the negotiation of memoranda of understanding with relevant countries; and consultation on the introduction of non-suspensive appeals in respect of deportation).
	The Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have worked closely together to identify extremists overseas who pose a threat to the UK and I have already excluded a number of individuals from the UK.
	Work is underway to put together similar lists of individuals in the UK and we are reviewing the processes and mechanisms already in place for gathering national information on extremist activity. In respect of bookshops, the Terrorism Bill will make it illegal to disseminate material that may incite or be useful to terrorists.
	Memoranda of understanding have been concluded with Jordan and Libya and good progress is being made with other priority countries to which we wish to deport people. Notices of intention to deport where we would need to rely on assurances from the receiving state have been served on 29 individuals whose presence has been assessed to be a threat to national security. Most are detained pending the outcome of their appeal; four have been released on bail. It remains the position that we would consider legislation if legal obstacles were to arise in the process.
	Following consultation with opposition parties, a provision has been included in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill which provides that in national security deportations any in country appeal would be confined to ECHR issues and that matters of national security could be challenged only after the individual had been removed.
	To create an offence of condoning or glorifying terrorism, anywhere, not just in the UK.
	The Terrorism Bill now proceeding through Parliament contains many important measures that will assist the law enforcement and security agencies in the fight against terrorism, including the introduction of a new offence of glorifying terrorism in the UK or abroad.
	To refuse asylum in this country automatically to anyone who has participated in terrorism, or has anything to do with it anywhere.
	A provision has been included in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill which will allow us to deny asylum while respecting our obligations under the Refugee Convention.
	To consult on extending the powers to strip citizenship, applying them to British citizens engaged in extremism, and making the procedures simpler and more effective.
	Following consultation with opposition parties, provisions now included in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill will, if passed, replace one of the existing criteria for deprivation of citizenship—that the person concerned, "has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom"—with a test of the public interest. If passed, the Bill will additionally confer on the Secretary of State a power to remove a person's right of abode in the UK, again on "conducive" grounds, where this right derived from citizenship of a Commonwealth country other than the United Kingdom.
	To consult on setting a maximum time limit for all future extradition cases involving terrorism.
	Work is underway in consultation with Her Majesty's Court Service, the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary. This will involve better co-ordinating the responsibilities of all agencies with the aim of speeding up every stage of the process short of putting the case at risk or compromising fairness. Rashid Ramda has now been extradited and we will continue to prioritise cases such as these.
	To examine a new court procedure to allow a pre-trial process; and examine whether the necessary procedure can be brought about to give us a way of meeting the police and security service request that detention, pre-charge of terrorist suspects, is significantly extended.
	We are currently examining ways of allowing more sensitive evidence, specifically evidence derived from intercept, to be produced in court. The Government have accepted the decision of the House of Commons that the maximum period of pre-charge detention should be extended to 28 days.
	To extend the use of control orders for those who are British nationals and cannot be deported.
	To date a total of 17 control orders have been made of which nine have been revoked because the individuals who were the subject of the orders are now detained under immigration powers pending deportation. Eight orders are therefore currently in force, one of which is in respect of a British national.
	To expand the court capacity necessary to deal with control orders and other related issues. The Lord Chancellor will increase the number of special judges hearing such cases.
	The Department for Constitutional Affairs is reviewing the capacity of the courts, specialist tribunals and the judiciary to deal with existing and anticipated caseload relating to terrorism, with a view to meeting the demands of counter-terrorism.
	The judiciary have been very supportive of our efforts to improve the efficiency of terrorism-related trials. They have put in hand new procedures for the allocation, handling and case management of such trials. Her Majesty's Court Service is making an additional suitable court room available.
	To proscribe Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the successor organisation of Al Mujahiroun, and to examine the ground for proscription to widen them and put forward proposals in the new legislation.
	The Terrorism Bill widens the criteria for proscription. The list of proscribed organisations will be reviewed on the basis of the new Bill.
	To review the threshold for the acquisition of British citizenship to make sure that it is adequate, and to establish with the Muslim community a commission to advise on how there is better integration of those parts of the community presently inadequately integrated.
	The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill will extend the requirement to be "of good character", which presently applies only to those seeking citizenship by naturalisation, to all applicants for citizenship except those relying on a provision in the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. I will establish a commission drawing on representatives of all faiths and communities and have written to faith leaders for their views on membership and terms of reference. I intend to make an announcement on this matter early in the new year.
	In addition, my department continued to work with representatives of the Muslim community, culminating in the announcement of a number of important initiatives including:
	the creation of a National Advisory Council on Mosques and Imams;
	the training and accreditation of imams; and
	placing a greater emphasis on citizenship training for children attending madrassas.
	To consult on a new power to order closure of a place of worship which is used as a centre for fomenting extremism, and to consult with Muslim leaders in respect of those clerics who are not British citizens to draw up a list of those not suitable to preach and who will be excluded from our country in the future.
	I have today placed in the Library of the House and on the Home Office website the responses to the consultation paper Preventing Extremism Together: Places of Worship which was issued on 6 October. We received 66 responses in total, from a range of individuals, and representative national faith and law enforcement organisations. I am grateful to everyone who submitted views.
	Respondents were clear that strengthening police and community partnership was the most effective way of dealing with the problem of extremism at places of worship, emphasising in particular greater exploitation of existing police channels by communities to report extremist behaviour earlier, citizenship training and, as was emphasised in the response Association of Chief Police Officers, the earlier use of existing legislation and operational techniques by law enforcement agencies.
	This commitment to joint working and information sharing, alongside the provisions to tackle extremism in the Terrorism Bill and the positive recommendations that emerged from the Preventing Extremism Together report published on 10 November, represents a coherent package of action and, consequently, I will not seek to legislate on this issue at the present time, although we will keep the matter under review.
	A database of individuals around the world who have demonstrated unacceptable behaviour is being developed.
	To bring forward the proposed measures on the security of our borders with a series of countries specifically designated for biometric visas over the next year; and to compile an international database of those individuals whose activities or views pose a threat to Britain's security— anyone on the database will be excluded from entry with any appeal only taking place outside the country.
	Embarkation controls were immediately introduced as a response to terrorists attacks in London. Fixed controls were introduced at major ports in support of Special Branch. The Immigration Service has the ability to re-establish a fixed embarkation control at one hour's notice in case of urgent operational need.
	Over the next five years, e-borders will transform our immigration control. Using new technology we will develop an integrated system to check travellers before they enter the UK and to prevent travel to those who have no right to enter or who are known security threats. E-borders will also enable us to take appropriate actions against passengers of interest to each of the border agencies, and to collect information on when people arrive and whether they leave.
	With this approach we will be able to improve security, improve efficiency and improve data information flow and intelligence on people entering and leaving the UK. The introduction of high-tech e-borders will be combined with the phasing in of biometric passport-based ID cards to increase substantially our knowledge of who is coming in and out of the country.
	We have already implemented biometrics operations in visa posts in Sri Lanka and East Africa; new operations began in Vietnam, Democratic Republic of Congo and the Netherlands in November 2005. As a result, biometric match data is available to entry clearance officers in these countries before a decision is taken. By 2008, all those entering the UK on a visa will have been fingerprinted and digitally photographed. Border control staff are working with the United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) to identify and provide authentication and verification of biometrically enabled travel documents.
	As set out earlier, we have worked with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to establish an international database of individuals whose behaviour gives cause for concern.
	Public inquiry
	In addition to work on the 12 point plan, I have given careful consideration to the views of those who have asked the Government to establish a full public inquiry into the atrocities of 7 July. The Government do not believe that such an inquiry would add to our understanding of the causes of those atrocities, in particular when there are parliamentary and other inquiries underway into these and related events. Additionally, to establish one would be to divert the attention of our police and security services during an extended period of time when they are still actively engaged in both the murder investigation which continues and the detection and prevention of further atrocities.
	However, I believe that it is important to set out clearly an authoritative account or "narrative" of what happened before and around 7 July. Accordingly, my department will develop such a narrative which we intend should be published in due course. In doing so, it will work closely with the police and security services. In making final decisions on the content of the narrative to be published we will of course have due regard to the need not to compromise intelligence sources or put at risk possible prosecutions.

Lord Triesman: The G8 Summit at Gleneagles Hotel took place on 6–8 July 2005. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made a statement to the House on 11 July in which he outlined the successful outcomes of the Gleneagles Summit and the real benefits G8 Leaders committed to, including delivering an additional $25 billion in annual aid to Africa by 2010 and agreement on a process to tackle climate change.
	I am now able to release the organisational costs of this summit. Based on the final invoices and accounts received from our suppliers, as well as prudent estimates where final figures are not yet available, the organisational cost of the summit was £12.7 million. A breakdown of this figure will be placed in the Library of the House and then will be made available on the G8 website: www.g8.gov.uk.
	Securing the summit was the responsibility of the devolved Administration and the Scottish Executive. This covered every aspect of policing operations, including specialist public order, search and other teams drawn from forces around the UK, and additional grants to the emergency services. I understand that Scottish Ministers released the figures for these costs yesterday.

Baroness Andrews: My honourable friend the Minister for Local Government has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Government have today published a discussion paper about standards of conduct in English local government. It sets out our vision for a future comprehensive conduct regime for local authority members and employees. Such a regime would need to be part of our future strategy for local government, and hence this paper is published as part of the ongoing local vision debate begun by the Government last year.
	The paper incorporates the Government's response to the recommendations on conduct in local government in Chapter 3 of the tenth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Graham committee). It also incorporates our response to the report of the ODPM Select Committee on the role and effectiveness of the Standards Board for England, as well as a response to the recommendations of the board itself following its review of the code of conduct for members.
	We have largely accepted the recommendations of the Graham committee, in particular its central recommendation for a more locally based decision-making process for the conduct regime. Accordingly, we have not accepted the recommendation of the ODPM Select Committee to maintain the present centralised regime for handling allegations of misconduct by members. We have, however, largely accepted the other recommendations made by the Select Committee.
	The paper also indicates the approach the Government are minded to follow on the conduct of employees, in particular on the political restrictions which apply to local government employees, the pay of political assistants and a code of conduct for employees. In reaching these views, the Government have had regard to the responses received to the consultation that the office undertook on these issues last year.
	We believe that the approach set out in the paper would both deliver a clearer and more proportionate conduct regime for local government members and employees, and ensure that the public can continue to have confidence in those who serve them. We now intend to work with the standards board and other stakeholders to carry forward the changes identified in the paper, having regard to any comments and debate the paper itself generates. The Government recognise that certain of these changes would require primary legislation and they intend to seek this at the next convenient opportunity parliamentary time allows.
	Copies of the paper have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

Lord Adonis: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Ruth Kelly) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today, with my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, presenting to the House a document setting out our strategy to help reduce reoffending through improved skills and employment opportunities for offenders.
	The Government will publish in the New Year a five year strategy for reducing reoffending and protecting the public. This will emphasise the importance of punishment and deterrence in preventing offending. But it will also recognise the need to deal with the range of factors which lead some offenders into a cycle of repeat offending. This cycle carries a considerable cost to the Exchequer: a reoffending former prisoner costs the criminal justice system an average of £65,000 up to the point of re-imprisonment and £37,500 each year in prison. On top of this, there are often unquantifiable costs to the victims of crime and their communities.
	An important part of the government strategy is a concerted drive to transform the skills and employment prospects of offenders. The challenge is stark. A majority of offenders have poor skills, with more than half having no qualifications at all. Nearly half have experienced exclusion from school. Two-thirds were unemployed before prison.
	Evidence suggests that employment and a reduction in reoffending are linked, and that stability and quality of employment are key factors. Accordingly, there is a strong case, as part of our wider strategy, for seeking to get more offenders into jobs, and to raise their skill levels in order to improve their chances of becoming more productive and successful in employment, to the benefit of individuals, their families, and the wider society that would be damaged by continued offending.
	A great deal of progress has been made in recent years. Increased investment has raised the capacity of the prison education service, and improved basic skills training for offenders in the community. Achievement of qualifications in literacy, language and numeracy has more than doubled since 2001. Prisons are subject to the same demanding standards of external inspection as other education providers, and this is driving up quality. Jobcentre Plus offers employment and training advice to offenders in prisons and, with the help of additional Prison Service investment, in 2004-05 there were more than 41,000 cases in which an offender leaving prison went directly into employment, training or education.
	But there is more to do. Inspection evidence tells us that the quality of learning and skills in prisons is still too often inadequate, and unresponsive to individual needs. We need more coherence in assessment, planning and continuity between different settings; for example, when prisoners are moved at short notice, or released into the community. We also need to do better in engaging and motivating particular groups of offenders to improve their skills. Opportunities for education and training must lead to skills and qualifications that are meaningful for employers and to real job opportunities.
	We intend to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the sentencing reforms of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which make rehabilitation one of the statutory purposes of sentence, together with the creation of the National Offender Management Service, to build a new approach. The strategy is set out in the document, Reducing Re-offending Through Skills and Employment.
	The document sets out the case for action and outlines a radical vision to make a step change in four main areas: to focus strongly on jobs for offenders, with employers driving the design and delivery of programmes, and new approaches to get offenders into work; to ensure that training providers and colleges are better able to provide the skills offenders need to get a job; to promote a new emphasis on skills and jobs for offenders across prisons and probation services; and to motivate and engage offenders, through a new 'employability contract', with a strong emphasis on rights and responsibilities.
	Some action can begin at once. In other areas we propose to test new approaches in order to make the best use of the resources and capacity within the system. We look forward to the widest possible debate—with employers, with the learning and skills sector, and with colleagues working in prisons, probation and in jobcentres.
	This may in the past have been an area of education and training that has had a low profile. Along with my right honourable friends, I am determined that we should set a new ambition: to provide more offenders with the tools and motivation to turn away from crime and become employable and productive members of society.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport (Alistair Darling) has made the following Ministerial Statement.
	I am today publishing an independent research report which confirms the effectiveness of the national safety camera programme over the four years from April 2000 to March 2004. I am also announcing changes which will end the current ring-fencing of funding for safety cameras, and will give much more local flexibility and accountability, both on funding and in other respects, to local authorities, the police and the other agencies that are involved in improving road safety at the local level.
	The four year research report, prepared by PA Consulting and University College London, examines more than 4,000 camera sites in 38 safety camera partnership areas, covering virtually the whole of Great Britain. The report finds that safety cameras continue to be highly effective in reducing speeding, accidents and casualties at camera sites; the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit fell by 70 per cent at fixed camera sites; after allowing for the general trend of improving road safety, there was a 22 per cent reduction in personal injury collisions (PICs)—around 4,230 fewer per annum; and again after allowing for the general trend, there was a 42 per cent reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSIs)—around 1,745 fewer per annum, including over 100 fewer deaths.
	The report also considers the "regression-to-mean" effect. This effect arises because the number of PICs and KSIs in the period before installation of a camera may be higher than the long-term average for that location. The report finds that, at the very small number of sites where it was possible to examine this effect, a proportion of the observed reduction in PICs and KSIs could be attributable to regression-to-mean. The report concludes that, even after allowing for this finding, safety cameras are achieving substantial and valuable reductions in collisions and casualties.
	I have placed a copy of the PA-UCL report in the Library. It will also be available on my department's website.
	I am also announcing today important changes to the national safety camera programme in England and Wales. Taking account of the findings of the four year report, we have concluded that: safety cameras are delivering substantial and valuable reductions in accidents and casualties; the current netting-off funding arrangements has enabled a rapid programme of investment in safety cameras; the safety camera programme is now more mature, with some camera partnerships seeking few or no additional camera sites, as many of the worst casualty sites where a camera is the right solution have now been dealt with.
	It is therefore now timely that camera activity and partnerships are integrated into the wider road safety delivery process. For the future we are going to give greater flexibility to local authorities, the police and the other agencies who work with them to improve road safety, so that they can pursue whichever locally agreed mix of road safety measures will make the greatest contribution to reducing road casualties in their area. As part of this process the responsibility for safety cameras in Wales will transfer to the National Assembly for Wales.
	Therefore, 2006–07 will be the last year of the netting-off funding arrangements for safety cameras in England and Wales. I understand that the Scottish Ministers are also considering the future of the hypothecated safety camera programme in Scotland, and will announce their decision in due course.
	For 2007–08 and beyond, my department will enhance the overall level of funding for road safety provided to local highway authorities in England through the Local Transport Plan (LTP) process. For the first time a proportion of this funding will be revenue based.
	The enhanced funding will be allocated to authorities in accordance with their road safety needs (using the existing LTP road safety formula) and with the quality of their second, round UP submissions and delivery record. We will also provide enhanced funding to Transport for London. My department is writing to all highway authorities in England to provide details of this change, and inviting them to reflect this new flexibility in their LTP submissions due in March 2006.
	We propose to allocate some £110 million a year for this enhanced funding over the period 2007–08 to 2010–11. As well as the greater flexibility, this will provide financial stability and facilitate long term planning. It is also a substantial increase in funding for road safety, by comparison with the latest projection of 2005–06 expenditure by safety camera partnerships in England which is some £93 million.
	In considering the quality of LTP submissions, we will have regard to, among other factors, the degree of co-operation and wider collaboration between the local authority, the police force and the other relevant agencies in the area, in respect of their road safety strategy, linkages with other areas of work and their approach to tackling individual problematic locations. We want local strategies and decisions to be well founded, taking account of the combined knowledge and expertise of all the agencies concerned, and to avoid duplication of effort. My department will work closely with local road safety partnerships to help them produce high quality bids, and to deliver substantial casualty reductions. We will also encourage road safety partnerships to include a wider range of other organisations in local decision-making, and not restrict themselves only to police and local authorities.
	For the final year of safety camera netting-off funding in 2006–07 we are amending the handbook of rules and guidance to reflect the findings of the four year report. The criteria on the location of safety cameras are being changed to ensure that cameras can be used where there is a strong road safety need. The deployment criteria will. take account of all injury accidents as well as the level of KSIs, look back five years rather than three; and allow camera enforcement on routes where there is a serious problem of speeding and casualties, without the problem necessarily being concentrated at one particular location. A copy of the updated handbook will be placed in the Library and on my department's website in due course.
	The handbook will also make improvements to the signing of cameras, to further assist drivers to recognise and comply with the speed limit: speed limit and camera signs will be co-located where possible; signs will be placed to allow the sign and camera to be visible to the driver in the same view.
	We also intend to publish shortly revised guidance to traffic authorities on setting local speed limits, which will request authorities to review the speed limits on their A and B roads by 2011, and to give priority to reviewing the limit on any road (not just A and B roads) on which there are poor casualty histories or there is a widespread disregard for the current speed limit, especially where safety cameras are being considered. By undertaking this review, which may lead to inappropriately low speed limits being raised as well as inappropriately high speed limits being lowered, we wish to encourage motorists to have greater respect for speed limits generally.